Discalced Carmelites of the Most Holy Trinity

[Hna.Caridad]

@Sponsa-Christi

@Nunsuch

I tried to send a private message to both of you and it won't go through, so I find myself posting this note publicly (not my preference).

 

Because I respect both of your knowledge and insights...what is going on in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, TX regarding the Carmelite nuns and do you think that it's a unique situation or is it setting some kind of precedent that could it affect other congregations of women religious (nuns and/or sisters) throughout the world?  On the one hand, it seems completely bizarre (we are in the 21st century after all, surely there's more going on than what is being reported?) On the other hand, it's also standard history (and all-too-often, reality) for many (if not most) congregations of women religious to suffer unjust interventions at the hands of churchmen with power.

 

It kind of surprises me how few sisters seem to be paying attention to it considering the generational repercussions that might happen as a result of church authorities at various levels being willing to blatantly allow (and enable) the multiple violations of canon law that seem to be occurring with complete impunity.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to enter religious life if it becomes that precarious and I wonder how many people might actually end up leaving the Church over the scandal that the bishop has created (and the bishop created the public scandal by posting about the situation on the diocese's website in a way that covers up--yet again--priestly sexual impropriety). 

 

Admittedly, I don't know enough nuns to get a sense as to what their take on it might be, but maybe you do? 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for any thoughts/insights you might offer.  If you're able to private message me, that would be preferable (though I don't seem to be able to send private messages to you).

[Nunsuch]

@Hna.CaridadThank you for your kind comments about me!

I really don't know much more than you do, as what I do know is based on the many press reports I've seen. I do find it disturbing, needless to say. While I have no inside knowledge about this case, I find it difficult to believe that an elderly sister who uses a wheelchair and has many physical limitations -- and who (and whose sisters) apparently hasn't left the monastery for more than medical reasons in years--would be even capable (much less interested!) in such a relationship with a priest (or anyone). Also, I find it appalling that, while the bishop seems to have no problem dragging the sister's name through the mud, the alleged MALE participant in this relationship (just as problematic for him as for her, though I am NOT suggesting it actually happened) remains unnamed. 

Many people have asked me what I think of this. I wish I knew more. Perhaps someone from Texas knows more about the bishop? I have looked at the sisters' website, and they seem to be a very traditional group. The whole thing seems implausible.

There may, of course, be other factors that we are not privy to. But based on what has been made public, it all seems rather bizarre.

[BarbTherese]

Did not know anything about this and researching tonight came across a website report that implied Mother Agnes was aged 43? https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254492/carmelite-nuns-file-new-theft-and-defamation-charges-against-fort-worth-bishop-olson

[BarbTherese]

On 6/3/2023 at 11:17 PM, Nunsuch said:

Also, I find it appalling that, while the bishop seems to have no problem dragging the sister's name through the mud, the alleged MALE participant in this relationship (just as problematic for him as for her, though I am NOT suggesting it actually happened) remains unnamed. 

Shocked but not surprised!

[BarbTherese]

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/texas-carmelites-case-reflects-the-vatican-s-new-culture-of-ecclesial-punishments?utm_campaign=NCR&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=261682542&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--v6fSg8IJPz0riLTiMRYfgLo-f0BGR5bZfC4nBgKXAAYNITccJec4OW4zqSuLPjvuc1zRPRWCL4fmHu9n982jhne-P4Q&utm_content=261682542&utm_source=hs_email

Quote

 

Texas Carmelites Case Reflects the Vatican’s New Culture of Ecclesial Punishments

COMMENTARY: Forty years ago, such punishments were rare and light; today, they are frequent and severe. Has balance been restored?................more on above link

 

 

[graciandelamadrededios]

I happened to have a copy of the 1990 and  1991 Constitutions of the Discalced Nuns of the Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel. 

 

This caused a huge rift between the Superior General of the Order and a group of Carmels led by Mother Maria Josefa of the Heart of Jesus, Prioress of the Cerro de los Angeles Carmel in Spain.  Mother Maria Josefa was formed by Mother Maravillas of Jesus, now a Saint.  Mother Maravillas founded several Carmels in Spain and these monasteries are very, very conservative.  If I am not mistaken, all of the Carmels founded and refounded by Mother Maravillas follows the 1990 Constitutions. 

 

In 1995, Sr. Mary Kathleen Kuenstler, P.H.J.C, wrote her thesis with the topic “POST-CONCILIAR RENEWAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE TEXTS FOR THE ORDER OF THE DISCALCED CARMELITE NUNS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL.”

 

 

Please refer to the text with underline to see the differences as regards the relationship of the Nuns with the Superior General of the Order:

 

1990 CONSTITUTIONS

 

JURIDICAL STATUS OF THE MONASTERIES

ERECTION AND SUPPRESSION OF THE SAME

 

133. The Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel constitutes in the Church a spiritual family which belongs equally the Carmelite Fathers and the Discalced Carmelite Nuns.  Between them there ought to exist a unity of spirit and of doctrine, but not necessarily a dependence of government and jurisdiction.

 

     As regards their juridical condition, our monasteries, preserving spiritual unity with the entire Order, have no other major superior above the Prioress, except the Holy See, nor they are associated with the Discalced Brothers in such wise that the Superior General should have any power over them whatsoever.  Consequently, they are entrusted to the vigilance of the diocesan Bishop according to the norm of law. (Cf. can. 615)

 

134. These monasteries, erected by a formal decree of the Apostolic See, are of Pontifical Right and depend immediately on the same in regard to internal governance and discipline (Cf. cans. 589, 593, and 609).

 

 

===============================================================================================
 

 

 

1991 CONSTITUTIONS
 

THE CANONICAL STATUS OF THE MONASTERIES AND THEIR ERECTION AND SUPRESSION

 

The canonical status of the monasteries

 

199. The Discalced Carmelite Nuns of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel and the Discalced Carmelite Friars together constitute a single religious family in the Church.

 

200. The Discalced Carmelite Nuns, who are governed by these Constitutions, profess an entirely contemplative life.  They observe papal enclosure in monasteries sui juris which are governed by and subject to a Prioress, who is a major superior, according to the norm of law.

         The Superior General of the Order is the head of this family.  To him pertains, in his service to the nuns, the task of promoting their unity in fidelity to the contemplative-ecclesial ideal begun by St. Teresa of Jesus, and of fostering union among all the monasteries and with the rest of the Order as well as with the Apostolic See, without detriment to the autonomy which universal law and these Constitutions grant to the monasteries.

201.  Since they are of pontifical right, every monastery depends on the Apostolic See in what pertains to internal government and discipline.  For the exercise of immediate responsibility over the monasteries, Apostolic See entrusts them to the regular superior of the Order, according to the Constitutions, or to the diocesan bishop, according to the norm of law.

          For that reason, as far as the canonical condition of the monasteries is concerned:

a)     Some remain, according to the age-old norm, under the jurisdiction of our Order, and have as their regular superior the Superior General or their respective provincial, who have over the monastery the jurisdiction determined by these Constitutions.

b)     Others, by the Apostolic See’s special decision, are entrusted to the special vigilance of the diocesan bishop, according to the norm of law.

 

202.  The canonical condition of the individual monasteries, to which reference is made in the preceding number, must be determined in the act of foundation.  For a monastery entrusted to the special vigilance of the bishop according to the norm 615 to pass under the jurisdiction of our Order, the following are necessary:

a)     The deliberative vote of the monastery.

b)     The approval of the diocesan bishop.

c)      The Superior General’s acceptance with the consent of the Definitory.

d)     The authorization of the Apostolic See.

          For a monastery placed under the authority of our Order to be entrusted to the special vigilance of the diocesan bishop, the following is required:            

a) The deliberative vote of the monastery.

b) The approval of the Superior General with the consent of the Definitory.

c) The diocesan bishop’s acceptance.

d) The authorization of the Apostolic See.

 

203.  The juridical autonomy mentioned in the foregoing numbers, must be accompanied by autonomy of life.  Therefore a monastery must have everything it needs to lead an autonomous life, including enough resources and personnel for a faithful Teresian Carmelite observance and formation and government, so as to give assurances for the vitality of the monastery, its development, and its future needs, according to the norm of the present Constitutions.  This must be kept in mind especially when new foundations are being planned.

 

The reason why the Superior General of the Order, or the  Provincial General of the Order and their respective councils are unable to help, investigate or send their own visitors  to the Carmel of Fort Worth  since the Nuns opted to follow the 1990 Constitutions.   There are evidence that this Carmel used to follow the 1991 Constitutions but they switched to the 1990 Constitutions hence they are no longer listed as member of the St Teresa Association which member monasteries follows the 1991 Constitutions.  I read online that Fort Worth Carmel  is now a member of the Christ the King Association , a new association of 1990 Carmelite monasteries of Nuns and  I think this is the 5thAssociation of Carmels in the USA.  Speaking of Association, which is endorsed or enforced by Cor Orans, the Association President has the right to initiate investigation with regard to this matter .  Mother Marie of the Incarnation of Lake Elmo Carmel is the Association President but the problem is, this Carmel is very conservative and  they rarely go out on meetings.  From what I heard, those Carmels following the 1990. Constitutions, their version of meetings are made via email or mail correspondence only and not done on physical or face to face meetings.  They have no website and no mentioned about them except for one article related to this issue.  

COR ORANS

 

VI. Ecclesial Vigilance of the Monastery

74. Each structure of communion or government in which female monasteries can be configured, are guaranteed the necessary and due supervision, exercised principally – but not exclusively – through the regular visit of an authority external to the monasteries themselves.

75. Under the universal and proper law, the service of supervision corresponds to:

1. The President of the female monastic Congregation in reference to the communities of the congregated monasteries;

2. The Major Superior of the male associated institute, who is called the religious Ordinary, in reference to the community of the juridically associated female monastery, according to the law[48];

3. The diocesan Bishop in reference to the communities of monasteries entrusted to his special vigilance according to the norm of law[49] present in his own particular church.

76. Each female monastery is entrusted to the vigilance of a single authority, since the regime of simultaneous and cumulative “double dependence”, that is, of the Bishop and of the regular Superior, present in various canons of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, is no longer present in the Code of Canon Law.

77. As regards the monasteries of nuns united in the monastic Congregation, the scope and concrete methods for carrying out the service of vigilance are to be drawn from the Constitutions of the female monastic Congregation, approved by the Holy See.

78. As regards the monasteries of juridically associated nuns, the scope and modalities for carrying out the service of vigilance by the religious Ordinary are established in their own Constitutions, approved by the Holy See, in which must be defined the rights and duties of the associate Superior and of the associated female monastery, according to their own spirituality and traditions.

79. As far as possible, the legal association of monasteries of nuns to the corresponding male order should be encouraged[50] in order to protect the identity of the charismatic family

80. Congregated monasteries and juridically associated monasteries, however, remain bound to the diocesan Bishop as established by the universal law and reported in no. 83 of the present Instruction.

81. As regards the female monasteries entrusted to the particular vigilance of the diocesan Bishop, this is expressed in respect to the monastery community mainly in the cases established by the universal law; as the diocesan Bishop, he:

a) presides over the conventual Chapter that elects the Major Superior[51].

b) carries out the regular visit of the monastery, also with regard to internal discipline[52], taking into account the provisions of this Instruction;

c) examines, as the Local Ordinary, the annual report of the financial administration of the monastery[53];

d) in derogation from can. 638, §4 CJC, gives as Local Ordinary, his written consent for particular administrative acts, if established by its proper law[54].

e) confirms the indult of definitive departure from the monastery, granted to a temporary professed member by the Major Superior with the consent of her Council[55];

f) issues the decree of dismissal of a nun, even of temporary vows[56].

82. These cases, expressed to delineate the scope and modality of the particular vigilance of the diocesan Bishop, form the basis of the scope and the vigilance of the religious Ordinary of the Associating Institute over the juridically associated female monastery and must be present in the Constitutions of the associated monastery.

 

VII. Relations between the Monastery and the Diocesan Bishop

83. All female monasteries, without prejudice to internal autonomy[57] and possible external exemption[58] are subject to the diocesan Bishop, who exercises pastoral care in the following cases:

a) the community of the female monastery is subject to the power of the Bishop[59], to whom it must devote respect and reverence in what concerns the public exercise of divine worship, the care of souls,[60] and the forms of apostolate corresponding to their character[61];

b) the diocesan Bishop[62], on the occasion of the pastoral visit or other paternal visits and even in case of necessity, can provide appropriate solutions himself[63] when he finds that there are abuses and after appeals made to the Major Superior have had no effect;

c) the diocesan Bishop intervenes in the erection of the monastery by giving written consent before the approval of the Apostolic See is requested[64];

d) the diocesan Bishop intervenes, as local Ordinary, in the appointment of the chaplain[65] and, always as local Ordinary, in the approval of ordinary confessors[66]. Everything must take place “considering the specificity of the proper charism and the needs of fraternal life in community”[67];

e) the diocesan Bishop intervenes in the suppression of the monastery by expressing his opinion[68];

f) the exclaustrated nun refers to the diocesan Bishop, as the local Ordinary, and to her Superiors, remaining under their dependence and care[69];

g) the diocesan Bishop has the faculty, for a just cause, of entering the cloister and allowing other people to enter, with the consent of the Major Superior,[70].

84. For congregated monasteries and associated monasteries, the points of pastoral care delineated above constitute the only possible forms of intervention by the diocesan Bishop, since the rights/duties of the President of the Congregation for the congregated monasteries and the rights/duties of the religious Ordinary of the Associating Institute towards the associated monastery must be safeguarded.

85. For monasteries entrusted to the particular vigilance of the diocesan Bishop, the points of pastoral care just outlined are to be added to those that the Code of Canon Law presents as expressions of particular vigilance, referred to in no. 81 of the present Instruction.

V. Suppression

67 Affiliation can be an opportunity for recovery and rebirth when autonomy of life is partially compromised. If the situation of incapacity is irreversible, the solution, as painful as it is necessary, is the suppression of the monastery.

68 A monastery of nuns that cannot express, according to the contemplative nature and finality of the Institute, the particular public witness to Christ and to the Church His Bride, must be suppressed, keeping in mind the usefulness to the Church and to the Institute to which the monastery belongs.

69. In these cases, it is up to the Holy See to evaluate the opportunity of setting up an ad hoc commission formed by the Ordinary, by the Federation President, the Federal Assistant, and by the Major Superior of the monastery[43].

70 Among the criteria that can contribute to determine a judgment concerning the suppression of a monastery, after having examined all the circumstances, the following points should be considered as a whole: the number of nuns, the advanced age of the majority of the members, the real capacity for government and formation, lack of candidates for a number of years, lack of the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism in dynamic fidelity[44].

71 A monastery of nuns is only suppressed by the Holy See after having acquired the opinion of the diocesan Bishop[45] and, if it seems opportune, having heard the opinion of the Federal President, of the religious Assistant, and of the religious Ordinary, if the monastery is associated according to the norm of can. 614 CJC.

72. The assets of the suppressed monastery, respecting the will of the founders and donors, follow the surviving nuns and go, in proportion, to the monasteries that receive them, unless otherwise provided by the Holy See[46] which may dispose, in individual cases, of a portion of the assets to be given to charity, to the particular church within whose boundaries the monastery is located, to the Federation, and to the “Fund for the nuns”.

73 In the event of the suppression of a totally extinct monastery, when there are no surviving nuns, unless otherwise provided by the Holy See[47], the destination of the suppressed monastery's assets, in compliance with canon and civil law, go to the respective higher juridical person, that is, to the Federation of monasteries or to another structure of communion among the monasteries equal to it or to the female monastic Congregation.

 

Each Carmel is of Pontifical Right and Mother Prioress is the major superior of each Carmel. 

Based  on the above guideline, the erring nun should have been warned several times and if she continue to misbehave, then appropriate action is taken. 

Now, if the Prioress is relieved from her post, automatically, the Ordinary of the place will become the Superior of the monastery and in this case, Bishop Olson and he can do whatever he wants  and he has now the power to suppress this monastery and decide that to do with the property.

 

 

[graciandelamadrededios]

Global Sisters Report article

Later on Friday, NCR’s Global Sisters report published an article by Dan Stockman with a fairly comprehensive analysis of the situation to that point. He fills in some important gaps, but also discusses areas of uncertainty and leaves some unanswered questions, including in the area of the monastery’s constitutions and reporting structure, especially why their monastery’s association (or anyone else in Carmelite leadership, for that matter) have been involved.

The reason for this — to the best of my understanding — is that the Arlington Carmel follows the 1990 Constitutions (the more strict/traditionalist one). Sister Gabriela discussed the differences between “1990 Carmelites” (those who follow the 1990 Constitutions) and the 1991 Carmelites (those who follow the 1991 Constitutions). She summed up the contrast between the two groups in terms of how the word “traditional” is understood in different ways: “we see that the word ‘traditional’ can have different meanings. Those who follow the 1990 Constitutions consider that they are traditional because they hold to the Constitutions that Teresa herself approved in 1582. Those who follow the 1991 Constitutions consider that they are traditional because they try to put into practice Teresa’s own return to the sources by practicing the discernment called for in the Rule and seeking to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout the day.”

It is difficult to glean from the internet which Constitutions the Arlington Carmelites follow, especially because there are references to them on old websites belonging to the St. Teresa Association — of which they were apparently members at one time. The St. Teresa Association’s website (which is made up of 1991 Carmels) lists “Fort Worth” (Arlington’s previous location) as a founding member, but they are not on the list of current members.

But I will note that in her affidavit, Gerlach quotes the 1990 Constitutions. In item 6, (pages 11-12) of the affidavit, she cites Chapter XIX, “Juridical Status of the Monasteries Erection and Suppression of the Same.” This appears in the 1990 Constitutions. See the bottom of the 75th page of the pdf of the 1990 Constitutions (p. 34 of the appendix). (Also see the tweet here for screenshots).

If they are indeed under the 1990 Constitutions of the Carmelite order, this means they have no official oversight from the Carmelite Friars or any other Carmelite sisters. In a 2022 letter from the Father General to the 1990 Carmelites, he notes, “In the number 133 of your Constitutions (1990), before saying that the 1990 Carmels do not depend juridically on the Father General (he has no jurisdiction over them), and that they have no other Major Superior over the Prioress, but the Holy See.”

I have been informed that Arlington belongs to the Christ the King Association, which includes the Carmels of Lake Elmo, Traverse City, Kensington, Buffalo and Ada-Parnell. Their president is Mother Marie of the Incarnation, at the Lake Elmo Carmel, and their Religious Assistant is Fr. John Mary Burns of the Hermits of Carmel, also in Lake Elmo. I have found nothing about this Association on the internet, however. Additionally, the Arlington Carmel’s website hasn’t been updated in 15 years.